Most state constitutions require amendments to be voted on directly by the people during the November elections. It’s possible all of them do, though I haven’t read them all.

In Iowa, a measure is coming up for a vote that gun control advocates. It’s an amendment that would set a “strict scrutiny” standard for any gun control laws.

As federal lawmakers hash out details of bipartisan gun laws in the wake of recent mass shootings, a new coalition of gun safety advocates warn a pro-gun amendment to the Iowa Constitution will prohibit reasonable safety measures that Iowans support.

Republican state lawmakers passed legislation last year to add language to the state constitution that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and that any restraint on that right is invalid unless it meets the stringent demands of “strict scrutiny.”

The language, which will go before voters for approval this November, states: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

Republicans have argued for the measure for years, saying Iowa is one of only six states without protections in its constitution for the right to keep and bear arms.

And Iowa isn’t a particularly anti-gun state, either, which is why gun-control advocates are so upset.

Yet I honestly can’t imagine why.

After all, if gun control is so constitutional, why would they worry about a strict scrutiny standard in the first place. Could it be they know their preferred policies are actually an infringement on people’s gun rights and, therefore would not be tolerated under such a standard?

Of course it won’t, and that’s kind of the point.

But now, the people of Iowa can dictate whether or not they want that kind of standard in their state. That, too, is likely a problem for the gun control crowd, which is telling their people to vote no on the amendment.

Shocking, I know.

I do find it interesting that Iowa doesn’t have such protection for gun rights in its constitution, but then again, they also shouldn’t need them. The right to keep and bear arms should be preserved adequately at the federal level, with the courts applying strict scrutiny on gun laws from any level of government.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen too many courts decide to ignore the plain text of the Heller ruling. This won’t stop that at the federal court level, unfortunately, but it can do a lot of good throughout Iowa itself.

The truth is that gun control advocates don’t care about people’s rights.

Now, the question is whether the amendment will pass or not, but this far out, it’s difficult to tell one way or another. I sincerely hope it does and I hope the gun control jihadists in the state learn to live with their disappointment.

Just kidding. I don’t care whether they learn to live with it or not, just so long as they get to experience it.